4 ms·

So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No mali

So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, just curiosity to 'see what happens', so by your logic I should be square right? Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'? There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't. >Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.
- tiredofcareer 13y ago
  Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    It was your idea. You were blowing things way out of proportion too, and I don't really mean it. I'm sorry. Now come down from there.
  - n3rdy 13y ago
    If you knew inhaling anthrax powder would kill you, why did you suggest it in the first place? To be fair, it wouldn't kill all of us to do such an experiment. Not that anyone would think it was a good idea either way. So even assuming the other comment was telling you to "kill yourself" is dishonest on your part.
DanBC 13y ago
> Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that. No, lots of public commentary is condemning her for what she did but not want to see her entire future destroyed by federal conviction. Even if she's acquitted it's traumatic and destructive. It's the kind of thing that could have been dealt with entirely within the school.
- tiredofcareer 13y ago
  I was referring mainly to Hacker News and similar communities. Everybody condemning her has been downvoted to oblivion on these threads.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    I condemned her for what she did, but I also said that it was stupid for the school to involve police, and that it was something that should have been dealt with in school. I was not downvoted.
  - feduphacker 13y ago
    Good. You have the right to your opinion and we have the right to believe it's pure cow crap and downvote you to hell. This very comment might get downvoted to the abyss too, but I'll swallow that shit and carry on.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Comparing a pipe bomb to a plastic bottle pressure "bomb" is like comparing a gun shot to a nerf dart.
davorak 13y ago
Most of the backlash comes from the over reaction of the school and the DA. While her decision was not wise and definitely had some risk, I do not know exactly how she cared out this demonstration so the amount or risk is rather unknown to me, she is faced with punishment that could reasonably cripple her future.
Tangaroa 13y ago
To answer these questions in the order they were posed: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
rickhanlonii 13y ago
Yes, if you're curious what a pipe bomb explosion would be like, then I think you should investigate that curiosity safely with safeguards in place. If you want to 'see what happens' with anthrax, then by all means you should study its properties at your desk at work--inside a laboratory--with safeguards in place. And if you want to see what happens when you combine two chemicals in a science class, then by all means. I think students should be able to reasonably assume that the safeguards are in place. Because if we're giving our children materials to build the equivalent of a pipe bomb in science class, then that is our fault. We're the adults. We bring the safeguards, and they bring the scientific curiosity. And by the way, a discussion of recklessly carrying out science is independent of a discussion of whether an act can be scientific in nature.
u2328 13y ago
Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white You're completely ignoring the context and scale. She put some household chemicals in a soda bottle that caused a minor explosion. You're attempting to compare that to highly controlled biological weapons. Do you really think it's justified to charge her with a felony?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't. >Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.

tiredofcareer 13y ago
Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  It was your idea. You were blowing things way out of proportion too, and I don't really mean it. I'm sorry. Now come down from there.
- n3rdy 13y ago
  If you knew inhaling anthrax powder would kill you, why did you suggest it in the first place? To be fair, it wouldn't kill all of us to do such an experiment. Not that anyone would think it was a good idea either way. So even assuming the other comment was telling you to "kill yourself" is dishonest on your part.

DanBC 13y ago

> Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that. No, lots of public commentary is condemning her for what she did but not want to see her entire future destroyed by federal conviction. Even if she's acquitted it's traumatic and destructive. It's the kind of thing that could have been dealt with entirely within the school.

tiredofcareer 13y ago
I was referring mainly to Hacker News and similar communities. Everybody condemning her has been downvoted to oblivion on these threads.
- DanBC 13y ago
  I condemned her for what she did, but I also said that it was stupid for the school to involve police, and that it was something that should have been dealt with in school. I was not downvoted.
- feduphacker 13y ago
  Good. You have the right to your opinion and we have the right to believe it's pure cow crap and downvote you to hell. This very comment might get downvoted to the abyss too, but I'll swallow that shit and carry on.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Comparing a pipe bomb to a plastic bottle pressure "bomb" is like comparing a gun shot to a nerf dart.

davorak 13y ago

Most of the backlash comes from the over reaction of the school and the DA. While her decision was not wise and definitely had some risk, I do not know exactly how she cared out this demonstration so the amount or risk is rather unknown to me, she is faced with punishment that could reasonably cripple her future.

Tangaroa 13y ago

To answer these questions in the order they were posed: Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

rickhanlonii 13y ago

Yes, if you're curious what a pipe bomb explosion would be like, then I think you should investigate that curiosity safely with safeguards in place. If you want to 'see what happens' with anthrax, then by all means you should study its properties at your desk at work--inside a laboratory--with safeguards in place. And if you want to see what happens when you combine two chemicals in a science class, then by all means. I think students should be able to reasonably assume that the safeguards are in place. Because if we're giving our children materials to build the equivalent of a pipe bomb in science class, then that is our fault. We're the adults. We bring the safeguards, and they bring the scientific curiosity. And by the way, a discussion of recklessly carrying out science is independent of a discussion of whether an act can be scientific in nature.

u2328 13y ago

Your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white You're completely ignoring the context and scale. She put some household chemicals in a soda bottle that caused a minor explosion. You're attempting to compare that to highly controlled biological weapons. Do you really think it's justified to charge her with a felony?